Letters to the Editor, Aug. 19

UC Berkeley spokespersons usually justify the obscenely high salaries paid to higher administrators by citing their great administrative talent. But rather than directly addressing and solving problems on their own, these administrators’ “talent” seems to lie in hiring outside consultants to do the work. A case in point is the $200,000 paid to outside consultants burnish the chancellor’s image.

The same was true some years ago in Cal’s spending lavishly on outside consultants to determine how best to save money. Why are so many higher administrators paid so much to do so little? “Administrative bloat” and correspondingly high administrative salaries are a widespread problem in our colleges and universities. Nowhere does it seem worse than at UC Berkeley.

Martin Benjamin, Oakland

Drive yourself

I’ve been in the auto repair business since the early 1970s, when computers were first used in cars. As more and more computers and electro-mechanical interfaces are used, the failure rate of all these components has skyrocketed. There are dozens of companies profiting from repairing and reprogramming these devices. Frankly, self-driving cars terrify me because when, not if, these fail, will the driver be alert enough to take manual control? Just say no to autonomous cars.

Carlo Gardin, Fairfax

Unfair treatment

Regarding “15,000 volunteers have quit the Games” (Aug. 18): No pay, a skimpy snack, at least two weeks in a row chauffeuring, sweeping, bussing and cleaning long hours, told to work, all right, for free in the “spirit of the Olympics!” Play that again? With the billions garnered by the International Olympic Committee over the past four years, surely some money could be found in its budget or in those of host countries to pay people that supply needed services.

Substituting “volunteers” for “workers” to avoid compensating them sounds like antiworker “spirit” and modern-day slavery to me. France’s Renaud Lavillenic says, “If we have no respect in the Olympics, where can we get respect?” referring to his being booed by a home crowd supporting Brazil in pole-vault competition. Respect can start for the “volunteers.” Pay them.

Nellie Wong, San Francisco

Climate law

Regarding “Time running short for extension of California climate law” (Aug. 9): The Legislature has until the end of the month to pass a climate bill (SB32: California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: emissions limit) that would set new targets for emissions reductions in California. California has been a leader on climate for the past decade, and legislators should continue that leadership by passing this bill.

California’s climate policies have not only been successful at reducing harmful air pollution but they have also enjoyed broad support amongst Californians. In fact, a majority of Californians favor continuing those policies. A recent Public Policy Institute of California survey found that 68 percent of Californians support extending our signature climate law and reducing emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB32 will not only help ensure we have clean air, thriving communities and a healthy planet, but it’s also what a majority of voters want. Legislators should act on climate this year and pass this historic bill.

Jason Pfeifle, Oakland

Vote by mail

Regarding Saturday and computerized voting: With the advent of early voting, absentee ballots and the ability to vote by mail, why is there any need for Saturday or computerized voting? Even if one doesn’t want to mail in a completed ballot, it can always be taken to a polling place on election day, something that takes very little time.

Barbara Tetzlaff, San Francisco

Start recruiting

In less than nine months, all three of the UC schools from which I earned degrees have endured forced voluntary exits of their chancellors: UC Davis, UC Hastings and UC Berkeley. Leadership is everything. Full stop. But it is a monstrous task to run a public university with the California Legislature breathing down your back whilst underfunding your program. Being part of a system is another special challenge that private universities do not face.

Californians want it all: best-in-class professors, facilities, athletics and students. Yet our growing population is not met with adequately growing investments in the University of California. President Janet Napolitano is decisive and smart. Let’s hope she’s a good recruiter.

Nicole Bergeron, San Carlos

Social challenge

Pervasive homelessness in San Francisco has been written about and discussed in depth, yet one consequence that has not been fully understood is the erosion of compassion. When visitors to the city remark on the invisible people who inhabit our streets, I try to explain that over the years we have become inured to the plight of the homeless for many reasons. Like combat troops or emergency room physicians, we have grown protective layers of indifference due to daily encounters with the problem. But when speaking to those visitors whose perspective has not been coarsened by overexposure, I realize that the situation has created both a social and spiritual challenge.

Many feel they cannot be as fully human, as kind and generous, as they would prefer to be. Frustration has made others angry and resentful. Just as there is no simple solution for society, individuals must struggle to decide when to turn their backs and when to open their hearts. This is a tax on our morality that adds to the high cost of life in the city.

Steve Abney, San Francisco

No time off

Regarding “When democracy is order of the day” (Editorial, Aug. 17): One need not take time off from work to vote. Simply request a vote-by-mail ballot (formerly known as an absentee ballot) from the registrar of voters. Anyone can do this — one doesn’t have to be disabled — and once your name is on the vote-by-mail list, a ballot will be sent to you automatically before every election. So you can sit in the comfort of your own home at any time and fill out the ballot. You don’t even need a stamp to mail it back.

Terence Kirchhoff, San Francisco

Wait until after

There’s been much discussion about the wisdom of providing Republican nominee Donald Trump with regular briefings based on classified intelligence information, given his history of speaking first and considering the consequences later.

Of course, there’s also concern about providing these same briefings to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the wake of her overall carelessness with top secret data during her years as secretary of state. These briefings were initiated by former President Harry Truman who, after suddenly becoming president following President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death, is said to have been overwhelmed by the amount and significance of information he received only after taking the oath of office.

While I agree with the idea of giving someone who could take the reins of power advance warning about what they’ll be facing on day one, I suggest that the time for such briefings should be reset to begin immediately after the election and go throughout the period from November to the January inauguration. I see no need for, and in fact risk that could spring from, revealing state secrets to a candidate who could just as easily wind up a private citizen as the person responsible for guiding our ship of state.